With a great number of threads on this forum pertaining to sex ed, safe sex, and debates on the deviance of sexuality, I thought it necessary to start a thread pointing out the many lies in sex ed prepetuated by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.) and Planned Parenthood. Most of the information below can be found at http://www.cwfa.org/kinsey.asp, which cites all sources, so you can do your own research.

Any sex ed program in the country that is not abstinence based is based on the writings of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who has been given credit for the modern sexual revolution. Kinsey's findings are found in his twin books, Sexuality in the Human Male and Sexuality in the Human Female, collectively know as "The Kinsey Report." These books were first published in 1948 and 1953, respectively, and were based on data that Kinsey collected himself. This data looks quite compelling at a glance, showing that 10% of the general population is homosexual, that 95% of the male population has performed deviant and/or illegal sex acts, that between 30 and 45% of married men commit adultery, and other such surprising results. The bottom line was that mongamous sex was not only a pipe dream, but was so understimulating that people were looking for other outlets, and that archaic, religious views on sex were harmful repressions that led to unsatisfying sex lives. The solution was to introduce sex to children at a young age and teach them that sex was perfectly normal and healthy, while at the same time showing proper methods for protection from some of the consequences. This way, people would be free from the antiquated laws that kept 'proper' sexual release in check and would lead to a utopian society where there were no restriction, legal or otherwise, on sexuality.

So, what's the problem with this? Sounds good, right?

Wrong. Once you get past what he published to the data behind it, problems arise from all angles. Let's start with Kinsey's education. Seeing a "Dr. Kinsey" write a detailed thesis on human sexuality would lead you to believe that his Ph.D. was in psychology or psychiatry, or that he had a medical degree and was a liscences practitioner of one of the above, but that's not the case. Kinsey was a zoologist with a Ph.D. in insectology, the study of bugs. This makes him quite unqualified on the subject. Next, the questions he asked of his test subjects are a secret, making his results irreproducable, negating their value as a scientific study. Thirdly, his sample was hardly representative of the American population. Most people wouldn't talk with a stranger about their sex life in the 1940s, so Kinsey used prisoners, prostitutes, and other low-lifes. The value of his scientific data is misrepresented and invalid.

Now that the 'scientific data' has been negated, let's hit the next point. Kinsey had an agenda. Kinsey was a rabid, bisexual sex fiend, a sadomasachist, and a pedophile. In many cases, Kinsey intentionally doctored his results to justify his own deviant behavior. After his book led to the founding of the "Kinsey Insitute" at the University of Indiana (funded by Indiana tax dollars), he began many deplorable actions. He had sex with all of his male assistants, filmed pornography in his home of his wife and assistants and encouraged his assistants to bring their wives. He also conducted many 'experiments' involving sexuality in pre-adolescants...children. These 'test subjects' still cannot bring themselves to talk about these experiments even today, 50 years later. He also kept correspondence with many pedophiles worldwide to collect 'data' on child sexuality. His theory was that humans were sexual "from womb to tomb" and, by hook or by crook, was determined to "prove" it. In addition to these deplorable acts, Kinsey also fueled his view that marriage didn't actually work by inflating infidelity statistics by redifining marriage to include any couple that cohabitated, including prostitutes who lived with their pimps.

Kinsey also prepetuated pedophilia. In his correspondence with pedophiles, he'd encourage them to rape again so he could collect more data. When reviewing the accounts of the rapes, he recorded obvious signs of pain as orgams. Crying, screaming, fighting back, bodily and facial contortions were all seen as signs of orgasm, even in children as young as 2 months. Kinsey also dismissed the idea rape was harmful, saying that women actually enjoyed being forced and that the difference between rape and not rape was usually what time the girl got home to her parents. Testimony to this effect led to the reduction of penalties for sex crimes in nearly all states, the repealment of the death penalty in cases of rape in all 33 states that had it, statutes of limitations on rape, and a legal requirement of proof that a woman fought back for a rape conviction.

In 1956, the year Kinsey died, a former Nazi was convicted in a child rape/murder. During the investigation, police found hundreds of letters to him from Kinsey requesting more 'data.' It was later revealed that this man worked in a concentration camp, and when he saw a child he wanted, he'd give them a choice between sex and gas chamber. If the child chose sex, a detailed account would be sent to Kinsey. There's also a person (or possibly a group of persons) referred to only as "Mr. X" in the stuies who has had sex with over 800 children and countless animals.

The Kinsey institute is still a part of UI and is funded by federal tax dollars. Non-abstinence based sex ed is still based in Kinsey's 'findings.' Most sex ed material is published by the Kinsey Institute and they offer training that is required by some school districts to teach sex ed. There's even a movie called "Kinsey," starring Liam Neeson, (November 2004) that fails to show any of the negative aspects of his life and portrays him as a revolutionary who freed society from the horrible oppression of religious taboos on sex. This is like showing a documentary about Hitler without showing anything about the holocaust or attempted world domination.

Is this really the guy we want teaching our kids about sex? You might as well have Michael Jackson as a sex ed teacher. It would be safer.

I agree. Let's put sex education back into the streets and school bathrooms where it belongs. That's where a lot of us learn it anyway.
I'd be interested to find out what people like Hobbit actually know (or think they know) about sex. On your wedding night (if that ever comes), will you know what to do?

With a great number of threads on this forum pertaining to sex ed, safe sex, and debates on the deviance of sexuality, I thought it necessary to start a thread pointing out the many lies in sex ed prepetuated by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.) and Planned Parenthood. Most of the information below can be found at http://www.cwfa.org/kinsey.asp, which cites all sources, so you can do your own research.

Any sex ed program in the country that is not abstinence based is based on the writings of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who has been given credit for the modern sexual revolution.

Click to expand...

This is a great piece on why Kinsey may have been a nutjob, but I see nothing to substantiate your allegation that all sex-Ed classes in the U.S. are based on his works. Soooo, like usual,

I agree. Let's put sex education back into the streets and school bathrooms where it belongs. That's where a lot of us learn it anyway.
I'd be interested to find out what people like Hobbit actually know (or think they know) about sex. On your wedding night (if that ever comes), will you know what to do?

Not that I really care. I enjoy sex. And I was a good teacher.

Click to expand...

See, this is where people like you drive me crazy. I'm not arguing that sex education should be eliminated. That would be pretty stupid. In the "good ole' days," sex ed was done at home, by parents, but thanks to this new age of irresponsible parents, for which Kinsey is partly to blame, you can't trust that all parents will educate their kids properly about sex. However, sex ed should not be based around Kinsey's theory that all humans are sexual from womb to tomb, that sex is a perfectly healthy and acceptable activity in any circumstance (Kinsey said that all sex is good sex), and that the only solution is education in contraceptives and disease prevention. This is simply insane.

What sex ed should be is an *optional* program that parents have a hand in shaping that teaches the biology of sex, that the accepted context of sex is within the covenant of marriage (I might even concede that sex is supposed to be reserved as the ultimate physical expression of love, but that's as far as I'll go), and that contraceptives, while available alternatives to preventing consequences, are by no means perfect and that anything but abstinence runs the risk of pregnancy and disease.

At the very least, abstinence and the concept of waiting until marriage should be considered and the true statistics behind contraceptives, and the fact that some STDs are completely undeterred by condoms. As it stands, sex ed *promotes* sex and holds up proper condom usage as the *only* way to protect against STDs, and a perfect way at that.

Oh, and your stab at whether or not I'll know what to do on my wedding night was VERY immature. I was starting to think you were growing out of such comments, but then you come back and say something like that. It's insulting and only lowers your credibility. For your information, though, I learned about sex the old fashioned way, from my parents, a pair of people who OBVIOUSLY know what sex is (I'm here, aren't I?).

This is a great piece on why Kinsey may have been a nutjob, but I see nothing to substantiate your allegation that all sex-Ed classes in the U.S. are based on his works. Soooo, like usual,

Click to expand...

Read the whole thing. There's a whole section on Kinsey and sex ed, with sources cited and documented. It's the third section of links going down the right side of the page and has 4 links in it to documents about this, which, in turn, have all sources listed.

Read the whole thing. There's a whole section on Kinsey and sex ed, with sources cited and documented. It's the third section of links going down the right side of the page and has 4 links in it to documents about this, which, in turn, have all sources listed.

Click to expand...

I went to the links, and it says some groups advocated using his data, but nowhere does it say that all of today's Sex-Ed classes are.

I went to the links, and it says some groups advocated using his data, but nowhere does it say that all of today's Sex-Ed classes are.

Click to expand...

These groups pretty much run non-abstinence sex ed in this country. There's more in Dr. Judith Reisman's book than can be fit on that page, but until about the past decade, Kinsey's supporters had enough influence in schools that most sex ed material was published by the Kinsey Instituted and some districts even required that sex ed teachers be Kinsey certified before they could teach.

"I'd be interested to find out what people like Hobbit actually know (or think they know) about sex. On your wedding night (if that ever comes), will you know what to do?"

Hobbit, it wasn't supposed to be a personal insult. I was just using you as an example, since you made the statement. And are prone to make such statements.
There is more to sex than the core biological functions. There needs to be talk of the specifics. It's not a hit-and-run situation.
You CAN'T just say "don't do it" and expect your kids to salute you. I don't know how often this has been said here, by those much more eloquent than I. There HAS to be talk of birth control. And girls need to know the common misconceptions.
You see Hobbit, most guys do not have your upstanding moral values. They do not have your positive upbringing. The normal high school guy wants to get laid. It's as simple as that. His challenge is to find SOME WAY to get a girl to have sex with him.

Suppose you have a bottle of poison on your cabinet, way up near the roof. You tell your kids "NEVER TOUCH THIS!" but nothing else. You just tell them it's bad stuff, but you don't say why it is bad.
So one day, another kid walks in and tells your kid "I triple dog dare you to take one drink out of that bottle. And your parents don't know crap. They are your parents, after all. It's really good stuff. You will get the greatest buzz of your life, and I will tell every kid in school how awesomely brave and daring you are."
So the kid has a huge dilemna. He can disobey you, just this once, for a chance to be the ultra cool stud in his class, or he can say no and be a dweeb. And no one will ever know, except the kid.
Just like it only takes one drink of poison to kill you, it only takes one sexual encounter to get pregnant. It could be your son or daughter on either end.

If you have "properly" brought up your daughter in a loving Christian home, she is not going to have sex just because she knows about birth control. Just as some girls have sex just to impress people, others wouldn't do it if you offered them wealth and a new Lexus.
There are girls who use birth control pills to relieve hormonal distress and to regulate their cycle. Sex has nothing to do with it. Guys won't understand this, but girls will. If you have mind-warping, bone-curdling cramps for several days each month, you are not thinking "geez, If I could go on The Pill, I could have sex!" It is more like "geez, it would be sure be nice to go an entire month without wishing for death."

I went through abstinence schooling. It was a joke, because by ninth and 10th grade, most kids already knew (or thought they knew) about sex. It would have been nice to clear up the misconceptions.
If you give parents the "option," most of them are going to opt out. Which led to my question -- "what did your parents tell you about sex?" More than likely it is -- "two married people have sex and that produces kids." --end of story.

You can't expect non-adults to always make adult decisions. That is why they are still kids. They are going to screw up. At least give them options to screwing up.
If anyone out there had premarital sex, raise your hand if you came home and admitted it to your parents. Or even told them that you were even thinking about it.
I didn't think so. What hypocrites. :

Read my posts. I'm for sex ed where all the consequences of sex are discussed and where contraceptives are discussed, but with the proviso that they're not perfect, and that monogamy is the only real way to protect yourself from STDs. Sex would be presented as something for married couples ONLY (maybe go as low as those who truly are in love, but I'm against that), rather than a healthy, normal activity.

Gabby, you seem to think that abstinence and discussion of the details of sex are mutually exclusive. You can talk about contraceptives, STDs, pregnancy, and every other aspect of sex all you want in abstinence education, just as long as it's in the context that abstinence is the ONLY real way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs. As is, all other sex ed programs show condoms in such high regard that it gives teenagers a false sense of security. They think nothing will happen if they use a condom, which is false.

I'm guessing that the reason you thought the abstinence education program was a sham was because it was presented far too late and you were already convinced it was a sham before you were even there. Abstinence ed works, but only if done correctly, rather than the way you seem to think it's done. Contraceptive ed only leads to a false sense of security that leads to teenagers having more sex and putting themselves in further danger.

Hobbit "At the very least, abstinence and the concept of waiting until marriage should be considered and the true statistics behind contraceptives, and the fact that some STDs are completely undeterred by condoms. As it stands, sex ed *promotes* sex and holds up proper condom usage as the *only* way to protect against STDs, and a perfect way at that."

I'm trying to think back to my days in 7th grade health class. I do believe I had to have my parents permission to take this class. From what I remember the class mainly involved how the body works and how a girl gets pregnant, abstinance wasn't mentioned. The class also listed all the diseases that could result from sex and "nice" pictures to go along with said disease.

In the end, as I progressed through highschool, I don't think any of the boys saw any of the pictures because NONE were detered from trying to get sex as much as possible. I was taught abstinance at home, after all good girls didn't do that.

I do think sex ed should be in schools since many children don't have close relationships with their parents and need someone to talk to about their bodies and what's happening to them.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!